PK 663 
.A2 H64 



□ □□□3samH5 





































































o 

*>** •••' % *"° o*’ .«*«- 

® vv ® 

aV^ j ® A* ^ ° 

• t / y v* x # Id * A/3 ^ o 

r4 o> ^ .^ v & * 


A <> ♦-TV.* <G V %, ' 

■ ^ ,o v ° 0 




* V ^ *„ 

•A <►'*■•'•.« 

, o " o * «?> 



vfc 


♦" A* o_ % _ , „ 

* o N 0 Ap 

C\ «0 V *v°* 


* * ' *» * °^> 
- > V *!/£'♦ < 



^ ^ * 



^ * *TT, • * ,^ 

% v'\.‘*-* 

° .A * 

• » 


<■ 

* ^ °. 

* -**cr*- s - AV VO * 



° • A 




4. 0 ^ 




AA 

b^* . V 



• ^ * 

° <Tj.^V o 

* * -O.^ °* 

a, ^ ^ <G ^ v • * v' ^> 

* ^ * L 1 * * ^b A^ V 0 0 * 0 * ^ 

* ^ c, u J’^yrtiZ + O A*P » V5^v I* ^ 



® V 0v ^ ^ 

o* o° ^ «> 

a o <y 

jy * v * s# * 

# ,^V/kv ^ # - 

* aVv* ' —— 

► A V *£**. * * A. 

* <CL V 


Q a 0 


o ^ A 9- 


^ *. 

^5> ,■$ -a. 

• * 

* V '\ °° 

r«*' yp %. -•.»* a 

n v .I... *^, .<s> ..»•, _. 

V^ff/AA A . ^<SS^\D'Si,. ^ « 



4°<, 













jP-n#. 


^ 4>' 


. °o 

V V ; 

_ ° ^ 0 ^£. *» 

% ' 7 ^A* a 0° % * ‘‘^V* ’ y '-%.*• .T. ’ ' j0 

♦ ^ <3^ fe v * o + <y i ^ # # ^ <^v <3^ v * o* 

*<* ^ ^ * .a. y, v ^ v A> J t 

^ ^ «■ jAr0a.° a<* ^^ yb' 

\ wK? ! 

° . Cy> © 

, J? ^ °. . ^ . 

^ " xV^ <U • * » 

^ *f> 

«, - # . ^ (xO ^ <ib 

^ ♦»»*•• v f . * ^ ^ e - e ^° ^ "' <<y % # . ^ 




. * A <v *-7V* 6 -G O. " 

4 G 0° H & + ^ 1 ^ ^ *^Q 



* aV-^' x 






Vv* 





4fV. 











ft 

N 



A°+ 


♦* *K c\ *!W^V o ^ *&alr*f Jy cv v 

v <^ ..., % v “"° ■f 0 ,.. % "’* A? ,.., % * 

fi s&&\ \/ M* ^ ,*♦ **. 



0*0 




* * • 


„ '^O . o « O ^<6 

% o <A C * 

5l * 


*w 


r o v 


^ » 4-° ' 7 ^ . 




>°\.../%'"’* v'\, 

^ .'iS&o \/ *‘ 


‘ /.. ‘V* 






A 

Jy 

- •’o ^ •* 

^ * 
o* rp ^ ** , 

6 H 0 9 <p ^ * * / 1 * 

4fr *•••* O 
4? *V^V* ^ 




0*4 



V* 


« A - A? < 

y4 V *V '**’ r ,^° 4 « v "- 

^ A 


o V 



* *5%. . C . 

* +* d* 


4°* 


» 4° ^ ~*~<Z : Ma?' & 

..o'* *0° %.**••*’•* ^ %'* 

* # *^ "c* 4 pF *'**'>* "> v c* 

a'O’ A. >^fsw^o T 



• * o 


* ^ 

r 'S' C/ 



<* aV”^ 

4* ^ ^ 

* A 

.-s£ .°J«tv.:- ~* 

^ ^ ■%. A 



°. *U* ; 

° .A'V o’ 

* <•? ^p*. o 

e *.TT.• .6* # % '••** A 

♦ , ^> v cr . • 1 * * «* " 




% '*-«’ ^0 

a.. ,<y 

* ^ A * 

* ^ .A ♦ 

r \p ^ 

* <4* ^ 


o * o 


■•'</ V* 

A ♦VQKV. 


• N 0 



A 0 

* 

- *b ^ : 

o cP V -.^•’ ,# 9. 

*0^ t» v * ^ v 

4> a« «* 



• • o 


-V^ 
# ^?> 





V*U *_*S‘ 5 ’ 4 ^ a > 4'^*^*T* /‘.T \5 »« .4* „(V 

O. 'O • ft * ,/V '**• <v> Xf, °* A x y 

Av °o 4-4- •ASf»,l% ^ 0° ♦WZ?£'. * A* ,*, 

.-v « v*. a *> aKW/z^J* ^y a * 




0M 


v 0 ^ 



*»i^: 

© jP ^ $ °^ * ^ ^ * 

o»* aO^ ^ ‘■»>’*' A* 5 ' C \.^‘ , »»“'’ A°° ^ *" 1 

a4? ^ ^ A % , 




i»f jptttfluitge. 


A 

LECTTTBE 


i 

SANSCRIT AND HEBREW, THE TWO WRITTEN, PRIMITIVE, 
LANGUAGES, COMPARED. 


BY 

WILLIAM BROWNE HODGSON, 


HONORARY MEMBER OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETIES OF LONDON AND PARIS. 


NEWPORT R. I : 

FREDERICK A. PRATT, PRINTER. 






























































































































H (rtf C4 - l>n 

0 


1A -i*6f 








♦ 


A 

LECTURE, 


SANSCRIT AND HEBREW, THE TWO WRITTEN, PRIMITIVE, 
EANGHAGES, COMPARED. 


BY 

WILLIAM BBOWNE HODGSON, 

$ 

HONOEAEY MEMBER OP THE ASIATIC SOCIETIES OP LONDON AND PARIS. 


NEWPORT R. I : 

FEEDEEICK A. PK ATT, PEINTEB 

1868 . 




1 


* 







r 





i 




<• 

* 

* 






. . 

. ■ " 







* > 






















V 

r 


O- 

<V\ 


PREFACE. 


This lecture, on the Science of Language, is hut an imperfect outline. It 
<vas delivered, by request, before the Historical Society of Georgia. 

The Southern Confederacy is alluded to. It may, therefore, be proper to 
say, that the essay was written amidst the clang of arms. The only decision 
made by that fiery conflict, in renewal of all historic experience, was, that 
might is right. At its inception, whilst denying the expediency or necessity 
of war, I asserted the inalienable right of self-government. At its conclusion, 
as expressive of conquest, that right was allowed to the conquered, with the 
condition, that they approved and admitted to political equality, the voices of a 
barbarian race. The doctrine of race is involved in that of language; and this 
essay claims for the races speaking the Aryan tongues, to which English be¬ 
longs by inheritance, all political, ethical and social supremacy. That su¬ 
premacy, of God’s ordination, man now proposes to overrule, by the bayo¬ 
net, in favor of the exotic, inferior, race. It may be foreseen, that such a 
sacrilegious attempt to degrade the nobler race, will be punished by the 
eternal law of retributive justice. 

TJie tftiity of the human race was not, properly, a subject of this essay. 
The allusions made to it were incidental. The faculty of speech, which is but 
the expression of thought and conscience, however rude and limited, implies 
unity of purpose, in the moral structure of man. Diversity in unity, being 
the law of creation, there must be degrees, in the development of speech, as 
of intelligence and conscience. In cognate creations, there exist no abrupt 
differences, nor developments, per* saltum. From the negro of Congo, to 
Shakespeare; from the Dyak of Borneo, to Webster, the transition is more 
abrupt, than from the dray-horse to the Arabian steed. The comparison would 
be equally good, betwixt Webster and the Natick cobbler. 

I have approached the origin of man, with undoubting faith in the Mosaic 
books. In that of Genesis, every word is a mystery, or in the language of St. 
Augustine, tot verba , tot sacramenta. The “Testimony of the Bocks,” estab- 



IV. 


PREFACE. 


lishes its harmony with science. The fossil regions of Siberia, prove the once 
torrid climate of the poles, and the adaptation of the young world, to the ne¬ 
groid races which existed before Adam. If the existence of the pre-adamite 
races be rejected, it would be difficult to understand the book of Genesis. In the 
creation of Adam, man first rose to his highest dignity and intelligence, as a 
tiller of the soil. For, till then, “ the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon 
the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.” 

Unity of language would seem to be a correlative, to that of the human 
race. The diversity in unity of both, may be derived from the same law of 
thought and conscience, which make the supreme distinction of man, above 
other animals. Speech must, thus, result in diversity, corresponding with the 
different impressions made upon the consciousness and thought of races, 
under, various developments of their moral faculties. The objects of nature, 
would, naturally, be the first, to engage man’s moral faculties and perceptions. 
“ And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name there¬ 
of. ’’ Abstract and metaphysical language, the result of internal consciousness, 
was the production of intellectual faculties slowly developed. 

In the city of Babel, in the land of Shinar, “the people were one, and they 
had the same language.” “ And the whole earth (land) was of one language 
and of one speech.” The philosophic statement of this utterance, concurs with 
the Hebrew text —one word and one lip. The confusion of language which 
a cose among one people, using the same words and having one lip, arose from 
an alteration, in the use of those lips, and the other physical organs of speech. 
This produced phonetic changes, in the utterance, of the same word, by which 
a B became P. Y. or F. By this phonetic change, in the consonants of one 
people, and one word, they ceased to “ understand one another’s speech.” 
The profound analysis of Grimm, to which I have alluded, elicited the laws, 
by which, these phonetic changes of consonants, are governed. 

The results of, modern science are in harmony with the words of Divine 
Revelation. The more recent science of language, with its imperfednresults, 
tends to confirm that harmony. 


THE SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 


Comparative philology creates the science of lan¬ 
guage. Its methods, like those of comparative anatomy 
and the physical sciences, are positive, not theoretic. 
Based on facts and the observation of phenomena, it re¬ 
jects conjecture, and admits nothing which is not 
proved. 

This recent science belongs to the present century. 
It has only been reduced to system, within the last twen¬ 
ty years. It proposes, by a comparison of the vocabula¬ 
ries and grammars of the innumerable languages and 
dialects, spoken by the inhabitants of this globe, to deter¬ 
mine their relationship and affinities.—This will, also, 
determine the relationship of the different races of men 
who speak those languages. It is thus, that the cog¬ 
nate science of ethnology, derives its most authoritative 
facts and logical arguments, from comparative philology. 

If, for instance, it should be found, that the words of 
the Sanscrit language were similar to, or identical with, 
those of the Hebrew or Shemitic languages, then there 
would exist positive evidence, that they were closely 
allied. It would, also, be prima facie evidence, that the 



6 


races of men, speaking those languages, were of the same 
origin. But science demands more than similarity or 
identity of words, to establish identity of race. Anoth¬ 
er condition is required. The grammatical structure, 
or the mechanism of the two languages, in comparison, 
must also be alike or identical. If the words alone were 
the same, this would prove that the languages were the 
same ; but it would not prove that the two people were 
0 f the same race —The negroes of St. Domingo speak 
French words, and so do ours speak English. This does 
not prove the negro races to be, either French or En¬ 
glishmen. In neither case, can the African spe$k gram¬ 
matically, or connect words in a phrase, according to the 
genius of the French and English languages. ’The 
words which they have adopted, or imitated, from the 
superior race, are connected together, according to the 
mould or genius, which a law of nature imposes upon 
each separate language. The language of each distinct 
race, has its own grammatical laws from which it can¬ 
not escape. An African will use French or English 
words, but he will connect them in speech, as nature 
taught him to connect the words of African language. 
An educated African may be taught to speak English 
grammatically; but never will a whole people, con¬ 
quered or subject, acquire the syntax of the dominant 
race. Hence, in this process of adopting a foreign lan¬ 
guage, an irregular or inchoate form of speech, is pro¬ 
duced. Here, it is called patois; and on the shores of 
the Mediterranean, Lingua Franca. Language is the 
expression of the intellectual development of a race. 
Grammar, or the mechanism of its structure, is the vi¬ 
tality of language, and the speech of every race, has its 
own form of life. 


7 


The physiology of speech, presents another great 
characteristic of races. There are physical laws, which 
govern and control, the utterance of vocal sounds. Eve¬ 
ry race has its own mode of pronouncing consonants. 
The physical organs, tongue, teeth, lips, palate and 
throat, are required for the pronunciation of consonant 
letters. These letters are classed by grammarians, as 
dental, labial, palatal and guttural. These, again, are 
divided into tenues, medial and aspirate. Comparative 
philology derives much of its authoritive doctrine, from 
the physiology or organism of speech. Take one illus¬ 
tration. * T is a lingual consonant. Th is a linguo- 
dental, that is, both the teeth and tongue are used in its 
ance. Neither the German nor Frenchman pronounce 
utter th in thing. If he attempts it with effort, the 
sound will be mushy and dull, not sharp and hissing 
as in English— Thing. 

The cognate science of Ethnography has for its do¬ 
main, besides language, the physical features of men. 
Their hair, eyes, crania, brain and zygomatic arch. It 
thus reaches the boundary of comparative anatomy. 

Comparative philology has, therefore, its laws. One 
is, that similarity of words proves the relationship of the 
languages. Another is, that the grammatical structure 
and the vocabularies, both being alike, presume, or prove, 
the identity of the races of men, as well as that of their 
language. The comparison of the Sanscrit and Shemitic 
languages will presently be made, under the authority 
of these two laws. 

It is of the plenitude of human reason—that ray of 
the divine intelligence—that it attempts to scan the 
past. It reflects, on the present, and anticipates the fu¬ 
ture. I have wished to know something, of the prime- 


8 


val history of man, and of the first conditions of human 
speech. I know, that it is of divine origin, as man nev¬ 
er invented a language. The attempts of Leibnitz, have 
served but as amusement, to scientific curiosity. I see 
before me, a vast multitude of idioms and dialects, now 
spoken on this beautiful kosmos or globe. I perceive 
what they are now; just as science teaches me, that I 
stand now on the plieocene formation, the most recent 
in geology. This is tertiary ; but there are two other 
older formations, the secondary and primitive. So also 
in language, there are recent pleiocene and secondary 
formations. To the secondary, belongs the Sanscrit; 
and even now, science seeks to trace it to the primeval 
primitive rocks. Does chronology, or periods of time, 
apply to geologic formations? I think not; nor do I 
think it applies to language. The concentric circles in 
the body of a tree, will denote its age. Within the his¬ 
toric period, the growth and developments of language, 
may be traced. But there was also a pre-historic age. 
There was human speech, before all history, as there 
were tribes and people, who had no prophet to an* 
nounce their aspirations or sorrows; no poet to record 
their deeds. 

It is of divine record, as of scientific authority, that in 
the 44 garden eastward in Eden,” was placed primeval 
man. This paradise was pleasantly watered, by classic 
streams, the Tigris and Euphrates. Its confines were 
bounded by the Caspian, and the mountains of Himal- 
ya and Ararat. Its climate was tropical, in thatmstro 
nomic era, when, by mutation of the earth’s axis, or re¬ 
duced incandescence, the animal life of the equator, ex¬ 
isted in the . arctic zone. In the bosom of this sacred, 
mysterious land, there sprung up in the course of time, 


9 


two mighty families of language, the Sanscrit, or Ja¬ 
phetic, and the Shemitic. They are the cradles of all 
religion, and religion is the parent of all civilization. 

We may wish to know, if there were one primeval 
language, from which all others were derived. It is of 
divine authority, that “ God hath made of one blood all 
the nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the 
earth.” This unity of men, would seem to imply, unity 
of speech. The unity of the human race is derived 
from its moral and intellectual constitution. The speech 
of man, is the spontaneous expression of the thought, 
conscience, and the moral sentiments of this intellectual 
being. Thought is spontaneous; so is speech in all 
its diversities of expression. The Divine Creator be¬ 
stowed on man, the faculty of reason, and with it, the 
power of expression, through the mechanism of vocal 
organs. Speech flowed from the lips of primeval man, 
spontaneously, and perfect in all its wonderful combina¬ 
tions. 

Diversity, not uniformity, is the law of nature. His¬ 
tory dawns upon a world, peopled with tribes and races. 
All mountains and plains, all banks of streams, and 
shores of ocean, were then covered with tribes, each hav¬ 
ing its distinct form of speech. The first recorded ut¬ 
terances of man, are lyric. A hymn to the Divine Crea¬ 
tor, a litany, a prayer, is the earliest expression and 
necessity, of man’s conscience and moral sentiment. 
It is the first spontaneous utterance of the poor Indian, 
with untutored mind, as it is the noblest emotion, of the 
proud science of the lettered sage. All thought im¬ 
plies spontaneous faith in God. Natural atheism does 
not exist- As speech is but the expression of thought 
and conscience, so in the history of language, there is 


10 


nothing, in intellectual expression, anterior to the lyric 
hymn. The 66 likeness of God,” in which man was cre¬ 
ated, is psychical—of the soul. Conscience preceded 
language. “ The tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” 
was logically and historically, antecedent to the utter¬ 
ance of names, for the objects of creation. In these di¬ 
vine rays of conscience and intelligence, lies the unity 
of man. 

I respect humanity in all its members. It was my 
fortune, once, to have embarked with that great sav¬ 
age, Black Hawk, chief of the Sioux. At the early 
dawrn of light, I found him at the prow of the ship, with 
his hands extended towards the breeze, chaunting his 
lyric praise to the unseen Manito. In the presence of 
this religious, thoughtful savage, I, too, reverently bowed 
with the profound conviction that of “ one blood were 
all men made.” In the presence, too, of that barbarian, 
who was, at once, the prophet, priest, and king of his 
tribe, I could read the condition of men on this globe, 
before the historic age. He was the analogue, or rep¬ 
resentative, of all the primitive men, who, in all the four 
quarters of the globe, appeared at the dawn of history. 
They were all creations of the Divine power, all perfect 
in their physical and mental organization, endowed with 
the faculty of thought and the attribute of conscience; 
all were endued, under physiological laws, with vocal or¬ 
gans. Diversity prevailed in their physical structures, 
unity in their moral and intellectual attributes. 

This diversity of language, and its divine origin, im¬ 
press the philosopher, with reverence and awe. At a 
cabinet dinner in Washington, given by the then Sec¬ 
retary of State, John Quincy Adams, the question was 
asked by a guest, which was the greatest miracle re- 


11 


corded in the New Testament. There were eminent 
statesmen, and foreign diplomatists, present. Opinions 
varied. The wedding wine of Cana, was opposed to the 
feeding of the multitude by the sea of Gallilee. Final¬ 
ly, Mr. Adams declared that in his judgment, the mira¬ 
cle of the Pentecost was the greatest. On that day, 
“ there was assembled at Jerusalem, devout men from 
out of every nation, under Heaven. They were all con¬ 
founded, because they heard every man speak in the 
tongue of the other, in which he was born.” Such was 
the conviction of the statesman and philosopher, that as 
no language was ever invented by man, so could not 
these “ devout men of Jerusalem,” suddenly acquire the 
tongues of each other, but by an immediate manifesta¬ 
tion of Divine Power. 

Comparative philologists proceed in the classification 
of languages as the naturalist classifies plants, according 
to genera, species, and varieties. The tomato and pota¬ 
to both belong to the family of solanums, of which there 
are hundreds of varieties. The languages of this globe 
have been grouped into four different divisions, called 
the Aryan, Shemitic, Turanian, and iUlophylian. To 
the Aryan, belongs Sanscrit; to the Shemitic,Hebrew; 
to the Turanian, Mongol and Tartar; to the Allophy- 
lian, all the others. Each of these great families or 
genera, embraces vast varieties. The Sanscrit, for in¬ 
stance, is the mother of Zend, Persian, Hindoustanee, 
in Asia; and of the Sclavonian Lithuanian, German and 
Celtic, in Europe. Each of these sub-families, is again 
divided into lesser dialects, derived from the parent 
stem. 

From Sclavonian are derived Russian, Servian, Bohe¬ 
mian and Croatian. 


1*2 


From Lithuanian, are descended Old Prussian, Lettish 
and Latin. 

From German come Gothic, Scandinavian, Dutch and 
English. 

From Upper German come the Old, Middle and New 
High German and Greek. 

From Celtic are derived Erse, Gaelic, Welsh and Bre¬ 
ton. 

1 his numerous class of Sanscrit languages are called 
Indo-European, as they occupy western Europe. Their 
descendants fill up North America, from the Pacific to 
the Atlantic ocean. 

The classification of comparative philology may be still 
further exemplified, by the Shemitic languages and 
dialects. 

1. 

Hebrew and its dialects, Phenician and Punic. 

ii. 

Aramaean. Its derivations are Chaldaic and Syriac, 
in. 

Arabic, literal and vulgar. Its dialects are numerous, 
iv. 

Abyssinian, from which are derived Amharic, Gheez 
and others. 

You will thus perceive, how the two great linguistic 
families, Sanscrit and Shemitic, have been treated under 
the system of comparative philology. It is not possible to 
extend beyond these two, the classification of languages, 
in this general review. Much time would be required. 
But as I have spoken of the Turanian division, I may say 
that it comprehends the Mongolians and the Mantchous ? 
who are the actual governing race in China; the Turks, 
and the Finns; in fact, all the tribes north of the San- 


13 


scrit belt. To the south of the Shemitic parallel, and 
intermingling with it, are the Coptic of Egypt and the 
extensive Berber family, which covers the whole 
of North Africa. Under the equator, and stretching 
to the Cape of Good Hope, Africa presents innumerable 
tribes, each having its distinctive idiom. 

I close this cursory and imperfect review, with the 
notice of a remarkable phenomenon. Here and 
there, over the area occupied bv a dominant family of 
languages, its current of extension is arrested, by the 
appearance in its midst, of an insulated distinct idiom. 
The Coptic in Egypt, stands like a rock in the flood of 
Arabic idioms, which surround it on all sides. The 
Magyar, or Hungarian, in the midst of Sclavonic ele 
ments, is in a like linguistic condition, having no affi¬ 
nity to the surrounding idioms. They may be called 
intrusive languages, like the intrusive rocks of geology, 
piercing through the overlying strata. The same phe¬ 
nomenon occurs in Mexico, where the Ottomite tribe, 
small in number, is entirely surrounded by Aztec idioms. 
In the absence of historic proof, we may advance a 
theory of this phenomenon. A conquering race may 
have overrun a country of rude primitive tribes. Some 
of these, may have escaped absorption and extinction, 
by the protection of localities. Or as in the case of 
the Hungarians, who are a Finnish, Ugrian race, they 
may have conquered a fertile region, encamped there, 
and perpetuated their race in that locality. 

The special ^characteristics of the Sanscrit and She¬ 
mitic languages, demand consideration. The Sanscrit, 
now no longer a living language, like Hebrew and 
Latin, is still like them, the sacred language of religion 
and law T . It is the sacred language of the Brahmins 


14 


and the Boudhists. It is preserved in the liturgy of the 
Vedas, an'd in the civil institutes of Menu. The Vedas, 
by common accord of Savans, is as ancient as the Pen¬ 
tateuch. Its existence will date fifteen centuries before 
the Christian era. I have presented to you a table of 
European languages descended from Sanscrit, among 
which, you will recall the Persian, German, Greek, Latin, 
English, French, and all Romanic dialects. If you will 
recur to the law which I announced, as establishing the 
affinity of languages, that is, similarity of words and 
grammatical structure, then you will demand a compa¬ 
rison of both, and first of words. 


Sanscrit. Latin. German. 

Man.Manusya —— Mann 

Father.Pitar Pater Fader 

Mother.Matar Mater Mutter 

Son.Sunus -Sohn 


Daughter.... Duhitar ——- Dochter 

Brother... ...Bratar Frater Bruder 

This compantive list might be indefinitely enlarged. 
The numerals in Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, German and 
English, are almost, identical. 

In the passage of the same word through cognate 
languages, the spelling becomes different. One conso¬ 
nant is changed for another.—The most striking illus¬ 
tration of this, is the word Fadas , a foot, in Sanscrit, 
which becomes podes or pous in Greek ; pes in Latin ; 
fotus in Gothic ; vuoz in High German ; fuss in Low 
German; and foot in English. These* changes are in 
conformity with the physiologic law of speech. That 
law, the result of profound investigations by the learned 
German Grimm, is this : 

The nine mute consonants are divided into 








15 


Labials, . Lingnals. Gutturals, 

p. b. f. t. d. dh. k. kh. th. 

These consonants are again divided into tenues, or 
soft; medial * and aspirates : 

Tenues. Medial. Aspirates. 

Labials p. b. ph. or f. 

Linguals t. d. th. 

Gutturals k. g. kh. 


It was found by investigation, that there existed a 
regular interchange of tenues, medials and aspirates, in 
the different dialects of Sanscrit. This interchange pro¬ 
duced Grimm’s law. Thus the terms of consanguinity 
as pitar, a father; matar, a mother; duhitar, a daugh¬ 
ter ; passing through Persian and German to our own 
Anglo Saxon, present the same letters and almost the 
same vocalization, with the phonetic changes of con¬ 
sonants. 

The earliest example of the mutation of consonants, is 
recorded in the book of Judges. When the Ephramites 
attempted to pass over to the Gilsadites, to* ascertain the 
truth of his nationality, the Ephramite was required to 
pronounce the word shibboleth , meaning a fountain of 
running water. Instead of the Gileadite shibboleth , 
he said sibboleth , for as the record says, K he could not 
frame to pronounce it right.” The shibboleth of the 
Sicilian vespers, where Italians massacred the French, 
was Cicero. Instead of Chichero the Frenchman said 
Sisero; for he could not frame to pronounce it right. 
In South America, the shibboleth of the Loyalists was 
Ciudad , which the Republican pronounced Siudad , and 
the Castilian Royalist, Thieedadth . What shall be the 
shibboleth of the Confederates ? Shall it be Cow— 
( Keow )—or Tube—( Toob ) Such are the differences 


16 


produced on the physical organs of speech, by climate 
and locality, or social and moral habits. 

Proceeding now, to compare the grammatical struc¬ 
ture of Sanscrit, let us see if that also, by the law which 
I stated, proves the affinity of these Indo-European dia¬ 
lects. The grammar of languages are, in their construc¬ 
tion, synthetic or analytic. Synthetic applies to those, 
which mark the relation of the parts of speech, by in¬ 
flectional terminations. Analytic grammar dispenses 
with inflexions at the end of the word, and places pie- 
positions before the word, to indicate relations. Sanscrit, 
Greek, Latin, Gothic and Saxon are synthetic languages, 
having inflexions of nouns and verbs. Persian and 
English are analytic, like all the modern Romanic lan¬ 
guages. They reject terminations, and use prepositions 
instead. In the conjugation of verbs, they use auxiliary 
verbs instead of terminal inflexions. The present tense 
of the verb Dadami I give, shows identity. 

Sanscrit. Greek. Latin. 

Dadami. Didomi. ego Do. 

Dadasi. Didos. tu das. 

Dadati. Didos. ille dat. 

To illustrate the use of auxiliary verbs, to mark the 
relations of time, take, in Greek, the verb Tupto , 1 strike. 
Romanic, or modern Greek, forms the conjugation,/ 
will strike , by thelo tupsei., instead of tupso , in Archaie 
Greek. I have struck, instead of tetupha, becomes echo 
tupsei. Amabor , I will be loved, becomes in French, je 
serai aime. All modern languages, Spanish, Italian, and 
English, use auxiliary verbs, to denote relations of time, 
instead of inflexional terminations. 

So, in the declension of nouns, Corpus hominis, the 
body of a man, becomes in French, le corps de 1’ homme, 


IT 


in Italian, ilcorpo de 1’ uomo; in Spanish, el cuerpo del 
hombre, in Portuguese, o corpo do homern. Hence you 
perceive, that the tendency of modern tongues, is to 
change synthetic structure to analytic; to substitute 
prepositions for suffixes; in fact to analyze a mass, into 
its component parts, and to give expression to these, 
components. 

The grammatical structure of these Sanscrit dialects, 
has thus, in the course of time,undergone a great change. 
It has been a process of disintegration, like that of the 
primitive rocks. It is a psychologic phenomenon, the 
result of the reflective faculties. Did men and nations 
decide, that a single word, including in itself, the rela¬ 
tions of case and number, should be analyzed into its 
component parts, and that relations should be ex¬ 
pressed by prefixes, standing as independent words, 
to point out those conditions ? I think not. No coun¬ 
cil of men has ever changed the structure of a language. 
Such movements come from within, and are the ex¬ 
ponents of the intellectual nature of man. There is a 
class of languages called polysynthetic, or doubly syn¬ 
thetic. Such are our Indian tongues and the Nurni- 
dian. The phrases of these barbarians, are a lump of 
words, rolled up into one. Ooraskhasahnagara, I will 
not give it to him , is an example. Children, speak in a 
lump, synthetically. Education gives them the anyla- 
tic faculty, and then they begin to separate into parti¬ 
cles, what was at first, a fused mass. Nations were not 
educated, when the process of disintegration com¬ 
menced. We can only record the fact, that synthetic or 
inflexional languages, have become analytic or reflec¬ 
tive, The Tunanian idioms are agglutinate. They 

3 


18 


glue together in one word, the subject, predicate and 
object. 

The historical deduction, therefore, is, that the higher 
you ascend in time, the more complicated languages 
are found to be, where synthesis is their genius. There 
is a system of languages in Eastern Asia, as the Chinese 
and its cognates, which are monosyllabic, and have no 
inflections or particles of connection.* They may be 
called Atactic , as having no order or structure. The 
meaning of a word in composition, is to be determined 
by its position. Cotton comes from the South , is ex¬ 
pressed by Cotton comes; origin , South. This is the 
genius of that Eastern people, which corresponds with 
their intellectual and moral character. It is stationary^ 
stereotyped, and incapable of intellectual development. 
This unorganized speech of the Chinese, is strongly in 
contrast with the utterances of that great barbarian 
Black Hawk, when he poured out his prayerful aspira¬ 
tions to the Divine Creator, who had given him speech 
of delicate inflections, and wonderful involutions. His 
speech was alike perfect, with the majesty of this form. 

Having said so much of the Sanscrit, as a synthetic 
language, abounding in capacities for the expression of 
thought, in its relations of person and number, time and 
mood, by inflections of words, by suffixes or termina¬ 
tions, I may now turn to the Shemitic. Its genius 
and idiosyncracies are strikingly different from the In- 
do European, which we have treated. 

The Shemitic vocabularies have nothing in common 
with the Sanscrit. To show this, it may be sufficient to 
compare their words, with the short list of Sanscrit and 
English words, already submitted. 

Al is father; am ,, mother; hint , daughter; ahi, brother, 


19 


and so on. No dissimilarity could be greater. It may 
be assumed, therefore, that under the first law of lin¬ 
guistics, no affinity exists. The same result is deduced 
from a comparison of the two grammars. In the gram¬ 
matical classification of languages, I have said there were 
two great divisions—those of inflexions and those of 
prepositions. The Shemitic constitute a third division, 
or class. Their peculiar characteristic is, that gram¬ 
matical relations are mostly expressed, by an internal 
alteration of the sound of the root word. They have, 
also, some prefixes and suffixes ; but the syntax is gov¬ 
erned, by changing the vowel sounds of the root. The 
inflexion is from within, and not entirely from without. 
Every word, with few exceptions, consists of three radi¬ 
cal, consonant letters ; consequently, the language is 
dissabyllabic. Unlike the Indo-European tongues, it is 
incapable of forming compound words. Such a com¬ 
pound as equilateral ,, or triangle , would not be possible in 
Hebrew. 

To exemplify what is meant by an internal alteration 
of the vowel sounds of the triliteral root, one instance 
may suffice. Take the verb katab , to write. The pre¬ 
sent participle becomes katib , writing ; and katub is writ¬ 
ten ; torah, a law, becomes torut in the plural. 

But plurals are also formed by a suffix or termina¬ 
tion. To denote these internal changes, the system of 
vowel points, called masoretic, was introduced after the 
return of the Israelites from captivity. During their 
long residence in a foreign land, their language became 
corrupted or disused. If, then, the words of the sacred 
writings were originally written with three consonants 
and with no vowel points, it became evidently impossi¬ 
ble for the unlearned, to read the words correctly. If, 


20 


for instance, English were a dead language, how could 
you pronounce correctly the two consonants b, b, form¬ 
ing a word ? It might be pronounced bad , bid, bod, bud . 
This constitutes the great difficulty, in reading all Shem- 
itic dialects, Arabic included. 

In the word katab, to write, which I have cited, there 
are three letters—k, t, b. They may be read in many 
different ways, as katib, kitab, kutoub, and so with end¬ 
less variation. Every word, in every language, must 
have vowels attached to consonants. They may not be 
written, but they must be pronounced. They are in¬ 
herent in speech, and voice is impossible without them. 
Thus it became a necessity, when Hebrew, as a living 
language, fell into disuse, to adopt a system like that of 
the masoretic points, in reading. This system, with its 
tones, accents and diacritic points, is excessively com¬ 
plicated. They are the preliminaries to the study of all 
Hebrew grammar, whose syntax, declensions, and com 
jugations are based upon them. Open the grammars 
of Ewald or Gesenius, and you will find an immensity 
of rules for their government. After all, the numerous 
vowel points in Hebrew, should not surprise us, if we re¬ 
flect, that there are in English, nineteen different vowel 
sounds arising out of the powers of a, e, i, o, u. A has 
four powers, represented by fate, far, fall, fat. The 
Hebrews have distinct vowel points to mark these pow¬ 
ers ; we have not. 

These are the salient characteristic distinctions be¬ 
tween the Sanscrit or Japhetic, and the Shemitic lan¬ 
guages. They are entirely dissimilar. Yet I am not 
ignorant of the new school of philologers, which, in the 
ultimate analysis of human speech, reduces all words to 
demonstrative and predicative roots. These predicative 


21 


roots, or names of things, are conceived to be derived 
from the objects of nature, by imitation or onomatopeia . 
The impression made by these objects, upon the con¬ 
science or perceptive faculty, results in a vocal sound, 
as sound is produced by all objects, when struck. This 
is predicative. Demonstrative roots are interjections 
or particles of speech. At the head of this school are 
the Oxford Professor, Muller, and the learned states¬ 
man, the Baron Bunsen* 

The Hebrew language is stereotyped and inflexible. 
It expresses but two conditions of time—the past and 
the future. It speaks in command of authority for the 
future, appropriately for law, and records the past with 
majestic imagery to adorn the narrative. It has no 
affluence of conjective particles, to modify the statement 
of prepositions or logical ratiocinations. There are 
thirty verses in the first chapter of Genesis. The con¬ 
junction particle, and, is the only one used in twenty- 
nine of these verses. 

The Sanscrit and its Indo-European derivations have 
a different genius. They are languages of metaphysics 
and abstract ideas, capable of expressing logical analy¬ 
sis, and of investigating the laws of mind and matter. 
This Aryan race had worked out the precession of the 
equinoxes before the captivity of Babylon; and before 
that period, it had embodied, in five systems of philoso¬ 
phy, the physchologic speculations which have given 
renown to Scottish and German schools of metaphysic¬ 
ians. They had reached the syllogism in logic, whilst 
other races had stopped at the enthymene. To the 
Aryans, the human race is indebted, for its progress in 
civil policy, in government, science, and the arts of civ¬ 
ilized life. Magna Charta and Habeas Corpus , are the 


22 


great conquests of this race, whilst others have made 
no advancement in national life. It has given us the 
Copernican system and its complement the principle of 
Newton, and the three great laws of Kepler. The im¬ 
perfect but ingenious methods of Aristotle have been 
rectified by the organon of Bacon. Alchemy has been 
displaced by chemistry; and astrology by astronomy, 
in the celestial mechanism of Laplace. By polarity 
of light, we have learned that the sun is not incandes¬ 
cent, but flame • and KirchofF of Heidelberg has just 
discovered, as the climax of Aryan analysis and induc¬ 
tion, that the sun has its chemistry; that as all metals 
in combustion present their peculiar spectrum colors, so 
the colored rays of the sun could only be produced, by 
the combustion of certain metals. 

But there is a religious connexion between the San¬ 
scrit and Hebrew languages, which must ever consecrate 
them in the affections of mankind. They are the agen¬ 
cies through which, God has made known his attributes, 
and completed the two dispensations of his eternal 
council. From out of the bright effulgence of Horeb 
and the flashing thunders of Sinai, came forth the He¬ 
brew oracle—■“ I am the God of Abraham ; thou shalt 
have no other Gods before me.” And when men had 
been educated to a recognition of the divine govern¬ 
ment, then the agency of another language was used, to 
bring in a new dispensation. Man was to be drawn 
nearer to his Creator ; the terror of the law was to be 
tempered by Love. And so, in the fullness of time, the 
dead letter of the Hebrew law, with its ritual more 
lifeless still, gave place to the Sanscrit-Greek gospel. 
In this language, the beloved disciple announced, that 
God was love; and that the divine Logos had brought 


23 


life and immortality into the world. By the agency of 
this Japhetic tongue, the first recorded prophecy has 
received its fulfilment, last in time, “ God shall enlarge 
Japheth ; he shall dwell in the tent of Shem ; and Ca¬ 
naan shall be his servant.” 


% 


C 32 4 






% 

Q 

* 


VV 


A V ° 
,v ^ ° 



A ^ o 



'"f**** a o?rr* ^ 

A *•’'*♦ ^ .A 6 -t 0 ^ * * ^!A* * ^ 



*+# 


^O y 4 


„ J. 0 %. . 

» N 0 ° <0^ ^j> * * » *» * 4 

<o v * y#o v 4> 

r. A * 

</»V * 

A-y. 

■/ & % ’ 



<*A 

A<V - 

>V o 


° 

* ^ ‘v^* *° 

»v*^ o^ ,<y 

«p. v <2 5* < 

* 



» a** 

* ^ %■ 



A <. *?XT‘ ,6 4 '«•** ,<V <, *'.••* 

* ,p!4^% ^ °o A* *i^w% V ( 





oy 


4°^ 


V^-*V \ ^f!-'\^ 

*> V sV .*V»» ' # CV A 4 .***- -> V V .♦ sV ' 

• *. * ; *s*v. %/ / 

r/ a % ‘■“W?** . ** v a . a u \ °*., -_, 

% 


■w 


‘ A ^ *•.?• A <* ^TVi* A 
A • 1 ' * * **0 A % o o M « * <$» <A .•*■'*♦ 

<- 0 ♦WS&:. °.. A .v^#*. ^ ,. c t'*sE& 




*6 y 4 ; 




’’by 4. 


o A vV 

•* -CT ^ **/■>* A> 

A* s*s?/fr %/ 

A^> : SiP° 

r* ^y ‘.©IS,* .^? «$y o 




* ^ A 


A x* v^Tf* .6*’ ’o. '»•»* A **TVV’ 

A 0 " 0 * <$> (A , W ' * o ^O A.V c 0 N ® -» ' < ^J S 







■y 4c ^ t> 0v tz. 

*Yr>‘* ^ %. *'»»«'’ ^ ^ *"’* ^ ( „ 

;% % a v \ /° Awjy ^ y v .** 

- j?\ -wm : ^ V A ^1# /\ 

’/ ..... ^ 0 '•“7,...,/V'”’*o 4 ° t • 1 • •♦ A°- 

*x ^(\l//yyP^ o / rA^JU%« y P> J .A 


i ° 

i as 

o 




o ♦ A 



O %' , » J, $!&^.’ o' '^. *^ J ".* A **cy. „o 

°<8. , '»* 0 4? *"’ 

. a <s> o V *' * A V’ 

' ! ' v ^^&{^A^«* «£- ^ < Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. ?. 

® Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide k/ 
* * Treatment Date: July 2007 

• aVA A°?r% o 


*, '^„A 4 


v 


A ^ ^ ^ * PreservationTechnologies 5 

A ^• , #**^ <0' '-^y > A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION * 

< G' g 0 M ° ♦ r\> « *• ' a ^ ^ 111 Thomson Park Drive 

A • AT^V^<" V r_ C; * Cranberry Township, PA 16066 



Cranberry Township, I 
(724) 779-2111 


* 





y % 



o 

.... 

0 * ® 4 ' 0 > .. A # t 1 * _ ^ 

*" :iii* \ 0 < ck * 





'•ii • 



* aV <**. 

* v* ♦ « 

A V *0*0* <£ * • • 

*k • °-r^Nv?<-' „Q V .*. 


„ -_, w * &*+* 

<«' <V '*».°°* *o > 'V °o *• 

, v %. 4.9* .!,*»- % s> ,«V % V 

^ vW - 4 

«<&• 6 0 W ® ♦ f\ v - t / 0 *^0 

T - ~ vr /^sw. ^p. c° ♦wzji’ o j- 

„o '*• 







• » 0 



«fe<P 




A v &,’•'•> 

sy »»*•- 

a©' » *<2. 5* ♦ 

i* * 






< 9 V *•»<>’ aP’’ '* 5 >» 

V .•LjjL'* =\ AT .’*»» < 

W' ° > r °Io V* o 

*' A V *^ 

* ^ % 





• ^ n* 


_ ~v_^* W # 

* ^ -smts j> \ v r> . 4 

*?XT* -G* *?. 7 * A 

• ^ ry .<■'»* ^o <A^ o°“% 

; : m§&\ ' y °^ :*SI&* ^o 4 : 

■—-</.. v^v v^v % 

V .•Ljw'V -<y ***** *> \> »»V| - 

^ ^SsSfcfc V,** *■ 



vP<^ 

* ^ Vy V 

C°V, 

jP^ « 5 °^> *.«is^'» 

• f 0 ' %.*•• •’**\# l> 

, ^sX%ik'%. J"y 



: ^o 4 .', 


0*0 



% '••»* a' 1 
• °o / 

^O ^ • 





’„ ^e. A 4, 

.* /V ° 

<> V 'T'.T*’ f (f ts •'f.'? 

« o . *tr% 

^ ^ c° Jzp/rftL'* o A * 

* , 






<A *-T7i* -Cr 
6°"/. ^s> n V # 

W — ^ vf> fVJ i* 

* Tl . ^ * 

OA t * 


^ ' ^ V • . 0 ^ 0 ° y # o 



•>0 






V »’,V" 


♦ jCyjKgfc • 


_ 1 _<Y. 

WERT fTH 
bookbinding 

Gricrtyille. Pa. 

JuN-Au»ust 1988 ■-Jv « 

W e Ve OJjf»fy Bound ■■ 


o^ * 



L I 



e 

* /V 

V- <\. *-7.'' * ,0 4 

4> 6 < ’1 <, » "^s o^ « 1 "* "^o ,4' 0 C 

c ,W%»% O > 

"bt? ?«C 


i* ’ 5 ^. . v « 

:*. ^o 4 .1 







































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































